HOW MANY KINDS ARE TRUE GODS?

I know of two kinds, but most probably there are 3 if we include satan.

But i wont indulge elsewhere than on the two kinds you would be most interested in. Firstly, the divine gods. Secondly, the mortal gods. Both in their distinct and separate aspect, true gods.

Let me point out how there is two on the necessity to elaborate on the second kind rather than on the divine gods.

How was there two distinct true gods?

Firstly, moses was made a god.

Exodus 7:1
[1]And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Being made a god then he was a true god as obviously, god dont create counterfeits, right? He makes only real creation. Much so, he dont profess any leaning to false oaths as it say:

Zechariah 8:17
[17]And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD.

God dont make false oaths therefore to say that he made moses a god then that as literally is truth. Moses was a god and in truth a god, therefore, a true god.

Likewise when saying:

Psalms 82:6-7
[6]I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
[7]But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Being unable to commit false oaths, therefore god intended these people as gods in the true sense of the word, true gods. How come?

Cannot they be gods by name but not in essence true gods in their category as mortals?

1 Corinthians 8:5
[5]For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Clearly, the verses categorizes gods in these aspect:

1. Called gods by name only. These are not true gods.

2. Many gods which is not in the category of the first. Meaning, this includes true gods.

Therefore to say that some mortals are true gods is bec nowhere did god categorized them as simply “called gods by name only”, and bec god makes truthful oaths, therefore, calling some mortals gods is then a truthful oath, in essence, true gods.

Much so, moses was made a god therefore he was a true god. Can god make falsehood? Therefore moses was not a false god but in essence, a true god.

How could this reality distinguish the two kinds of true gods? Its bec god said this:

Isaiah 43:10

[10]Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

God is eternal. He has no “before me” and “after me” bec he has no beginning or end, so to say that no god was made before or after him was simply to say, he never made any god in whatever time of eternity. The problem is, he made moses a god. So it seems contradictory, therefore, to resolve it–context would suggest two kinds of true gods, the divine and mortal.

What god dont make before him or after him is a divine god. He somehow made mortals gods, in that essence as mortal gods distinct from divine gods yet in essence, both in their categories, true gods. How come?

Moses was made a true god.

Advertisements

WHY WAS JESUS CALLED “A MAN FROM HEAVEN”?

Indeed, he was called like that. Let me quote:

1 Corinthians 15:47
[47]The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

So was he a “true man”? Is it a literal man?

Nope. How could he be a literal man when he had preexistence?

John 6:38
[38]For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

By saying, i came down from heaven, is a direct testament of preexistence. Its like saying i came from manila. The speaker is the one who came from manila therefore if he is a living entity here then he must also be a living entity where he came from bec it speaks of the same person. Its the same thing with christ, if he is a talking entity on earth then he must be a talking entity where he came from bec it speaks of the same person. By that we can say, he had preexistence as a living talking entity in heaven.

Coincidentally, john confirmed such reality. That preexistent living being was the word.

John 1:1-2
[1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2]The same was in the beginning with God.

That word was preexistent in the beginning with god, therefore, he was god. Much so as corroborated by John 1:18 in the manuscripts of john called P66 and P75 even in the syriac peshitta calling jesus as the only begotten god.

Being god, he cannot be man in nature.

John 4:24
[24]God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24:39
[39]Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

By this reality, the notion that jesus as a man came from heaven, is questionable. It only proves that when he was called as a man from heaven it was not in the literal sense. He was merely called man but not in essence man. Like he was called the word in john 1:1 but in reality is not a literal word. Its just an ascription to denote a deeper meaning, that he was the embodiment of the word. In relation, being called man is an ascription only relative how he was once inside a human form.

How do they challenge this?

They said, john the baptist too was from god, so they were asking? Did he literally came from god?

John 1:6
[6]There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

The thing is, if we consult greek terminology, there is no guarantee that it should be from God bec it could be by God. And seeing the reality of Jesus as a true god in john 1:18 the only begotten god then it speaks really of a literal coming from heaven to pursue the reality of preexistence when he said i came down from heaven.

Therefore, can we say that saying jesus is a man from heaven speaks of a literal man? Or should we see this in the biblical scope that he literally came from heaven being a true god himself?

It would be clarified by asking, did a literal man came from heaven? Was there a literal man with flesh and blood in heaven then came to earth entered mary’s womb and become a fetus?

Its impossible, right?

The only acceptable reason was, he was god in heaven (john 1:1-2,18) then come to earth (heb10:5), then indwells in a human host and born as jesus christ.

1 John 4:2
[2]Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come en (into) the flesh is of God:

ANG SUGO BA AY KATUMBAS NG ANGHEL?

Hinde po. Ang anghel e isa lamang sa mga uri ng sugo. Ilan dito e propeta, teacher, priest at pastor. Wala po sa bible na ang sugo na tao e anghel. Alamin natin ibig sabihin ng sugo sa strongs dictionary published in the 1890’s. Itoy hango sa mga verses na ito: (Job 1:14; 1 Samuel 11:3 ; Lucas 7:24; 9:52), (Isaias 42:19; Hagai 1:13) (Malakias 2:7), (Apocalypsis 1:20)…

Hebrew: מלאך
Transliteration: mal’âk
Pronunciation: mal-awk’
Definition: From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet} priest or teacher): – {ambassador} {angel} {king} messenger.

Greek: ἄγγελος
Transliteration: aggelos
Pronunciation: ang’-el-os
Definition: From ἀγγέλλω aggellō (probably derived from G71; compare G34; to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor: – angel messenger.

Sabi:

A. a messenger; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet} priest or teacher)

B. a messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor

Una, ang sabi sa A ang sugo e me iba ibang uri. Ito ay anghel, propeta, pari at guro. Pangalawa, sa B ang sugo e me dalawang uri. Ito ay anghel at pastor. So sa kabuuan ang mga sugo e anghel, propeta, pari, guro at pastor… so mali na sabihing pag sinabing sugo e katumbas na ng anghel kasi pwede rin itong propeta o pari etc…

Wala pong mababasa na kapag sinabing sugo e katumbas non e anghel. Kasi ayon sa strongs numbers na dictionary e ganito:

a messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor

So ang sugo ay especially an angel at pag sinabing especially e hinde ibig sabihin e lahat ng sugo e anghel kundi most emphatically, anghel ang sugo pero merong iba maliban sa anghel na sugo rin. Ito ang patunay na hinde tama na sabihing katumbas ng sugo ang anghel, kasi merong iba na sugo maliban sa anghel ayon sa pagkagamit nito: especially an angel. Meaning, me ibang sugo na hinde anghel. Ito nga yung propeta, pari, guro at pastor. Walang mababasa na ang sugo e katumbas ng anghel. Wala pong mababasa na ang taong sinugo e anghel. Ang mga batayan nila e kinuha nila sa mga translation na nagsasabi ng ganito:

Mga Bilang, 20:16 – At nang kami ay dumaing sa Panginoon ay dininig niya ang aming tinig, at nagsugo siya ng isang anghel, at inilabas kami sa Egipto: at, narito, kami ay nasa Cades, na isang bayan na nasa dulo ng iyong hangganan: DS

Malachi 2:7
[7]For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the angel of the LORD of hosts.

Si moses at mga sacerdote ang tinutukoy na anghel pero tama bang salin ito?

Ang hebrew word na ginamit e eto:

Hebrew: מלאך
Transliteration: mal’âk
Pronunciation: mal-awk’
Definition: From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet} priest or teacher): – {ambassador} {angel} {king} messenger.

Ang tama pong salin kung ibabatay sa hebrew definition e messenger na maaaring propeta na tumutukoy kay moses o teacher na tumutukoy sa mga sacerdote.

a messenger; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet} priest or teacher):

Pero kailanman hinde tama ang anghel na tumutukoy kay moses at mga sacerdote dahil kailanman walang talata na tumutukoy sa tao bilang anghel. Kahit si john the baptist e anghel din daw pero mali ding salin yon.

Bakit?

Dahil kailanman walang talata na tumutukoy sa tao bilang anghel. Ang mababasa ay spirito ang mga anghel.

Hebrews 1:7,13-14
[7]And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
[13]But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[14]Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

So saan mababasa na me taong anghel? Wala po.

Uulitin ko:

Wala pong mababasa na kapag sinabing sugo e katumbas non e anghel. Kasi ayon sa strongs numbers na dictionary e ganito:

a messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor

So ang sugo ay especially an angel at pag sinabing especially e hinde ibig sabihin e lahat ng sugo e anghel kundi most emphatically, anghel ang sugo pero merong iba maliban sa anghel na sugo rin. Ito ang patunay na hinde tama na sabihing katumbas ng sugo ang anghel, kasi merong iba na sugo maliban sa anghel ayon sa pagkagamit nito: especially an angel. Meaning, me ibang sugo na hinde anghel.

Ang kanilang depensa e dahil daw sa tulad nito:

maaari bang itawag sa isang tao ang salitang “anghel” , ayon naman sa kilalang Bible Dictionary?

“Angel a word signifying, both in the Hebrew and Greek, a “messenger,” and hence employed to denote any agent God sends forth to execute his purposes. It is used of an ordinary messenger (Job 1:14: 1 Sam. 11:3; Luke 7:24; 9:52), of prophets (Isa. 42:19; Hag. 1:13), of priests (Mal. 2:7), and ministers of the New Testament (Rev. 1:20)… The name does not denote their nature but their office as messengers.” (Meaning of Angel from Easton’s Bible Dictionary)

Sa Filipino,

“Anghel isang salitang nangangahulugan, pareho sa Hebreo at sa Griego, na isang “sugo”, na ito’y ginamit upang tukuyin ang sinomang kinatawan na sinusugo ng Diyos upang isagawa ang kaniyang mga layunin. Ito ay ginamit sa isang pangkaraniwang sugo (Job 1:14; 1 Samuel 11:3 ; Lucas 7:24; 9:52), ng mga propeta (Isaias 42:19; Hagai 1:13), ng mga saserdote (Malakias 2:7), at ng mga ministro ng Bagong Tipan (Apocalypsis 1:20)… Ang pangalan ay hindi tumutikoy sa kanilang kalagayan kundi sa kanilang tungkulin bilang mga sugo.”

Kung titingnan ang kanilang patunay na Easton’s Bible Dictionary e meron na siyang biblical interpretation na sabi anghel ang mga sugo, propeta, sacerdote at ministro, so ang tanong: Personal interpretation ba niya to o hinde? Own understanding ba niya ito o hinde?

Proverbs
[5]Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Halimbawa, ang sabi:

Ito ay ginamit sa isang pangkaraniwang sugo (Job 1:14; 1 Samuel 11:3 ; Lucas 7:24; 9:52), ng mga propeta (Isaias 42:19; Hagai 1:13), ng mga saserdote (Malakias 2:7), at ng mga ministro ng Bagong Tipan (Apocalypsis 1:20)…

Naipakita ko na sa taas yung hebrew at greek word na ginamit at itoy: malak at aggelos na tumutukoy sa sugo at ang mga uri ng sugo na hinde lamang anghel yung sugo, so ang tanong, bakit inihahalintulad ang anghel sa sugo gayong hinde naman?

Kaya hinde maiiwasang maitanong din, ito bang source nila e nagsasalita by inspiration o by private interpretation?

“BESIDE ME, THERE IS NO GOD” HOW TRUE?

Our premise would be the INC’s concept of monotheism that when it say: Beside me, there is no god, speaks a clear invocation of monotheism and that in general terms, universal and a prescription for all mankind.
Lets check the reference point for such concept:

Isaiah 44:6
[6]Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:8
[8]Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 45:21
[21]Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

First, let me establish that these words are prescriptive only for mosaic Israel as it say:

Hosea 13:4
[4]Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Exodus 34:14
[14]For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Moreover, during those time, israel was the only nation with a true god:

2 Kings 5:15
[15]And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.

Therefore, when it say “beside me there is no god” was logically for that only nation with a true god–israel therefore prescriptive only for them.

Therefore when it say:

Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any

It should have been emphasized as a prescriptive truth only for mosaic israel in terms of recognition for worship, that for mosaic israel there is no god beside god almighty they should recognize neither god knew any for them to worship. It should have been this way:

Is there a God beside me for israel? yea, there is no God; I know not any for israel to worship…

Did god lie therefore when he said, there is no god beside him, when fact is jesus is too a true god?

No. Its not a lie to prescribed himself only for israel to recognize as their only god for worship. It doesnt mean, he is the only true god. He only prescribed himself as their sole god to recognize for worship being the supreme authority. Its like this: though jesus and i are true god, you only have to recognize me as your god to worship. It doesnt mean, he is the only god bec even jesus is too a true god. And never did he prescribe jesus to be their god.

JOHN 1:18 no man hath seen god at anytime, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD which was in the bosom of the father…

A site has this to say:

EARLY MSS ATTEST ITS VERACITY

μονογενὴς Θεὸς is represented in a great number of the earliest MSS, is prominent in the MSS that are considered to contain accurate texts, and is most probably what John actually wrote.

The following manuscripts support theos. This list conflates the evidence of those MSS which have an article (ho) and those without it (the latter is the text of Nestle-Aland):

  • Greek witnesses
    • Papyrus 66 [Papyrus Bodmer II] A.D. c. 200 (Martin), A.D. 100-150 (Hunger)
    • Papyrus 75 (A.D. 175-225)
    • Codex א – Sinaiticus (c. 330–360)
    • Codex B – Vaticanus (c. 325–350)
    • Codex C* – Eprhraemi Rescriptus (5th C.)
    • Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 375 -380)
    • Codex L – Regius (A.D 701-800)
  • non-Greek witnesses
    • Bohairic Coptic [Codex Bodmer III] (A.D. 300)
    • Diatessaron (“Out of Four”) of Titan the Syrian [Arabic version] (c. 160-175)
    • Syriac Peshitta (A.D 150)
    • Adysh manuscript (A.D 897)-Gregordian-Georgian/Iberian version
    • Opiza manuscript (A.D 913)
    • Tbet’ manuscript (A.D 995)
  • Late Greek
    • Minuscule 423 (A.D 1556)

Irenaeus’ (A.D. 130-202) ‘unigenitus deus’ in his Against Heresies IV, 20, 11 is probably a John 1:18 quotation from an Old Latin MSS.

The Coptic versions is one of the earliest versions of the NT where huios is completely absent.

Wallace again:

At the risk of sounding repetitive, θεός shows up again outside the Alexandrian tradition (e.g., early Latin Fathers in the Gospels are Western witnesses)76 with relatively strong textual weight (per Ehrman’s argument). (ibid.)

In sum, externally, both readings enjoy wide geographical distribution, even though υἱός is relatively stronger in non-Alexandrian forms of text. Both readings co-existed in the second century, although weightier MSS support θεός. As a whole, then, I believe θεός is more probable due to the quality, antiquity, and transmissional history of the witnesses listed above. (ibid.)

In retrospect, I conclude that μονογενὴς θεός is the best reading given all the evidence we have internally and externally. As a result, it is highly probable that the text of John 1.18 calls Jesus θεός. (ibid.)

****

But how about it when they said, there is only one true god quoting:

John 17:3
[3]And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The thing is, nothing is concrete with this verse as nowhere did it confirm an only true god of the whole universe, and having John proclaimed jesus’ divinity: the only begotten god then by context, it should have been interpreted in harmony. It could mean other things than “the only true god of the whole universe”. Therefore, its an ambiguous verse having the context of John 1:18.

It could be:

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God (in heaven) and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent (on earth).

Clearly, nothing is concrete with any of the INC’s defenses of monotheism as fact is, it could be interpreted in a contextual way considering John 1:18’s the only begotten god.

It need logic to do so, for these to be in harmony.

The question is, what if John 1:18 the only begotten god is correct scripture, then the biblical interpretation aforementioned above is correct, or is it?

This is how they tried to refute it:

JOHN 1:18 TRANSLATIONS
1. EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS
Even Ignatius(35-110AD) who believe that Jesus is a God and Tertullian(160-220AD) who believes in Trinity used the term “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON”, because that is the ONLY translation they have during their time. If there is “ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD” translation during that time, I’m sure they would not give a second thought using that translation, for that “ONLY BEGOTEN GOD” translation will promote their doctrine. But there is “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON” translation during that time.
“only begotten Son”(Ignatius Bishop of Antioch; Syria Philippians II; ca. 110)
“only begotten Son”(Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons Gaul; Against Heresies III, 11.6 ; ca. 180)
“only begotten Son”( (Clement Alexandria; Pedagogue I, 3; ca. 200)
“only begotten Son”, “The Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded the Father’s bosom.” (Tertullian Africa; Against Praxeas VIII; ca. 212)

Granting that this is correct, doubt would still arise bec there are uncertainties whether Ignatius, Irenaeus, clement etc… had with them all existing manuscripts or if all of these had been translated then as conclusive basis to say, there was never a manuscript then that say, the only begotten god bec they have all manuscripts with them and translated as reference materials. But did they have all manuscripts as confirmatory?

Did they have all existing manuscripts as validating that indeed there is no the only begotten god in any of the manuscripts?

Therefore they must have used only what was available was to them during that time and was deprived of really authentic scripture–the john 1:18’s monogenes theos.

Fact is, the lack of confirmation of integral possession of all manuscript has weakened such opposition thereby strengthening the reality of Jesus deity by the fact that some manuscripts of John regarded him as the only begotten god.

TAO BA SI HESUS NONG UMAKYAT SA LANGIT AT TAO BANG BABABA?

Sabi ng mga INC e si hesus tao ng umakyat sa langit at taong bababa sa kanyang pagbabalik. Ginagamit nila ito bilang patunay:

Acts 1:11
[11]Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

So kita dito, na kung paanong nakita si hesus umakyat e ganon din sa kanyang pagbabalik e makikita siya. Ang tanong, meron ba siyang laman at buto sa puntong umaakyat na siya sa langit?

Wala po dahil kailanman e hinde makakabahagi ang me laman at dugo sa langit:

1 Corinthians 15:50
[50]Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

So ibig sabihin, walang tao kailanman na makakarating sa langit. Ang mga kristyano, e mamanahin ang langit:

Matthew 25:34
[34]Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Ibig sabihin e wala silang laman at dugo sa panahong nasa langit na sila. Ganito rin ang mangyayari kay hesus dahil magkakaparehas sila ng kapalaran, mawawala yung laman at dugo nila, at itoy pareparehas nilang dadanasin dahil magkakatulad sila:

Philippians 3:21
[21]Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Kaya kung ang mga kristyano e walang laman at dugo sa langit e ganon din si hesus. At dahil magkakaparehas silang me glorious body kaya pareparehas din sila sa kapalaran. Magiging parang anghel sila:

Matthew 22:30
[30]For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

So ang para bang anghel at walang laman at buto e tao pa rin?
Hinde na po kasi by nature, hinde na nila taglay ang nature ng isang tao kaya hinde na sila tao sa panahong nasa langit sila.

Katunayan, walang isang verse na sigurado ang nagsasabing me tao na maninirahan sa langit o makakarating man sa langit, dahil ang makakarating lang don e yung me katawang panglangit at ang mga ito e hinde sinasabing mga tao pa rin.

1 Corinthians 15:49
[49]And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Though ang tao pagkabuhay na muli sa patay e magkakaroon siya ng spiritual body pero ang tanong kailan siya magkakaroon nito: immediately pagkatapos mabuhay muli o pagkatapos ng ilang araw pagkabuhay na muli?

1 Corinthians 15:44
[44]It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Si hesus nong mabuhay muli e me laman pa at buto so kita dito na wala pa siyang spiritual body pagkatapos mabuhay muli, nagkaroon lang siya ng spiritual body 40 days after niyang mabuhay muli nong paakyat na siya sa langit, nong mawala na ang laman at dugo niya:

1 Corinthians 15:50
[50]Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

So kung paanong umakyat siya sa langit na walang laman at dugo ganon din siya pagbaba niya. Wala siyang laman at dugo pero nakikita pa rin siya so tao ba ang ganon?
Hinde na di ba?
Ang batayan nilang si hesus e tao na sa langit e dahil me mababasang ganito:

Hebrews 10:12
[12]But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Acts 17:31
[31]Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Sabi,

A. BUT THIS MAN SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD.

B. HE WILL JUDGE THE WORLD BY THAT MAN

Pinalalabas nila na tao yung nakaupo sa kanan ng ama at tao yung huhukom sa judgment day. Pero kung titingnan sa greek text kung totoong MAN ang sinasabi e wala pong kasiguraduhan.

Una tingnan natin yung greek word na ginamit:

Greek: αὐτός
Transliteration: autos
Pronunciation: ow-tos’
Definition: From the particle αὖ au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind; backward); the reflexive pronoun self used (alone or in the compound of G1438) of the third person and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons: – her it (-self) one the other (mine) own said ([self-] the) same ([him- my- thy-]) self [your-] selves she that their (-s) them ([-selves]) there [-at -by -in -into -of -on -with] they (these) things this (man) those together very which. Compare G848 .

So kung itranslate natin, pwede itong ganito:

A. BUT THIS SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD

So hinde sinasabing MAN yung uupo sa tabi ng dios. Walang sinabing ganon, di ba? Pangalawa, tingnan din natin yung greek word na ginamit sa pangalawa:

Greek: ἀνήρ
Transliteration: anēr
Pronunciation: an’-ayr
Definition: A primary word (compare G444); a man (properly as an individual male): – fellow husband man sir.

So kung itranslate, pwede itong ganito:

B. HE WILL JUDGE THE WORLD BY THAT HUSBAND…

So kita dito na hinde pa rin MAN yung hesus na hahatol sa judgment day kundi husband. Husband po ng iglesia si hesus.

Revelation 19:7-8
[7]Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
[8]And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Anong napatunayan natin? Si hesus nong pumunta sa langit e hinde na tao. Bakit? Kasi wala na siyang nature ng totoong tao. Wala siyang laman at dugo…

THERE IS SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

Firstly, you have to answer this question before you proceed reading my argument: ARE SINLESS PEOPLE SAVED?

Of course, you would say, they are as they cannot be condemned. The question is, are there sinless people outside the church?

Of course, right? What is their judgment?

Let us hear from the one rabbi:

John 9:41
[41]Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

It say, a blind person is sinless. Meaning, in the spiritual sense. A blind person is spiritually blind. It speaks about his ignorance of the truth. Or that, his understanding is obscured:

Ephesians 4:18
[18]Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

It speaks about the blindness of the eyes of understanding that when opened shall have hope. Meaning, blindness is in regards to the lack of understanding. Therefore, being blind is the lack of understanding.

Ephesians 1:18
[18]The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

An example are idolaters who are ignorant of the truth. God winks at their idolatry. He overlooks it.

Acts 17:29-30
[29]Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
[30]And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Another spiritual blindness is manifested by paul:

1 Timothy 1:12-13
[12]And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
[13]Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

Unbelief bec of ignorance is excusable. Fact is, paul was excused even without repentance. Therefore, to be spiritually blind is to be ignorant of the truth, as bro eli soriano said: ignorance of the law excuses anyone.

It corroborated what jesus said that blind people are sinless. So being outside the church, do you think there is no salvation for them?

Nope. God said, they are blessed and to be blessed in the eyes of god is to be saved.

Psalms 32:2
[2]Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Therefore, for a blind person outside the church to be blessed, is a direct proclamation that there is salvation outside the true church of god.

IGLESIA NI CRISTO BA TONG IBANG TUPA NA WALA PA SA KAWAN?

Ang topic e sino tong “other sheep outside the fold”?

John 10:16
[16]And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Hayaan nating ang bibliya magpapaliwanag. Ano tong fold o kawan na sinasabi? Ito bay iglesia?
Pero paanong kung pumasok ka o lumabas sa kawan e ligtas ka pa?

So iglesia nga kaya ang tinutukoy?

John 10:7,9,16
[7]Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
[9]I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
[16]And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

So alin tong kawan na pwedeng pumasok don at lumabas at ligtas ka pa rin?

Sa puntong “other sheep”, sino sila? Sila ba yung INC ni manalo?

Hinde po.
Sila yung wala sa iglesia na tatawagin din para maging kristyano simula sa panahon ni hesus hanggang ngayon ayon dito:

Acts 2:38-39
[38]Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[39]For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Sino tong “other sheep”?

Sabi, AS MANY AS THE LORD SHALL CALL… Iyan ay tumutukoy sa panahong una hanggang sa huli. Fact is, naganap ito simula sa panahong una ng maconvert sila sa iglesia. Sila yung “other sheep”.

Acts 2:40-41
[40]And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
[41]Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

At sabi, TO ALL THAT ARE AFAR OFF. Ito rin ay kabilang sa other sheep yung nasa malayong lugar at panahon na tumutukoy sa ating lugar at panahon.

Sino sila?
Ito bay INC o MCGI?

Ayon sa gawa 20:28 e binili ni hesus ang iglesia ng dios sa pamamagitan ng kanyang dugo so kita dito na IGLESIA NG DIOS ang tunay na iglesia. Dito tatawagin ang “other sheep” na nasa panahon natin.

Anong patunay na IGLESIA NG DIOS ito? Ito kasi ang iglesiang inusig ni pablo sa kanyang kabuuan.

Galatians 1:22-23
[22]And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
[23]But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

Kita dito kung sino ang persecuted ni paul: the churches in judea. Ito ay maraming local churches. Anong pangalan nitong maraming local churches in judea na persecuted ni paul?

Galatians 1:13
[13]For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

CHURCH OF GOD PALA ANG PANGALAN NG MGA CHURCHES IN JUDEA NA PERSECUTED NI PAUL. Singular church na tumutukoy sa maraming local churches meaning, ito ang official name ng iglesia dahil ipinangalan ito sa kabuuan ng mga local churches.

So kita dito, na church of god ang tunay na pangalan ng iglesia so ayon sa gawa 20:28 e dapat e iglesia ng dios ang binili ni hesus sa pamamagitan ng kanyang dugo.

Anong palatandaan kung sino ito?
Sila ay nasa mga isla sa silangan.

Isaiah 24:14-15
[14]They shall lift up their voice, they shall sing for the majesty of the LORD, they shall cry aloud from the sea.
[15]Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the east, even the name of the LORD God of Israel in the isles of the sea.

Ano pa?

Malachi 1:11
[11]For from the EAST even unto the WEST my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

Ang iglesiang ito ay maguumpisa sa east papuntang west. So kanino natupad ito?

Aling iglesia ang tinatawag na church of god, maguumpisa ito sa mga isla sa east at pagkatapos lumaganap sa west?

Walang iba na kinatuparan dito sa east na me church of god na nagumpisa sa mga isla sa east na lumaganap papuntang west maliban sa grupo ni bro eli.

Kami ay mcgi pero ang tunay naming pangalan ay church of god…

JESUS IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD IN JOHN 1:18

The rendering of John 1:18 in KJV is “the only begotten son” or monogenes huios in greek. We believe there is a better and more correct rendering: the only begotten god or monogenes theos in greek.

μονογενὴς Θεὸς or monogenes theos–the only begotten god.

A site has this to say:

EARLY MSS ATTEST ITS VERACITY

μονογενὴς Θεὸς is represented in a great number of the earliest MSS, is prominent in the MSS that are considered to contain accurate texts, and is most probably what John actually wrote.

The following manuscripts support theos. This list conflates the evidence of those MSS which have an article (ho) and those without it (the latter is the text of Nestle-Aland):

  • Greek witnesses
    • Papyrus 66 [Papyrus Bodmer II] A.D. c. 200 (Martin), A.D. 100-150 (Hunger)
    • Papyrus 75 (A.D. 175-225)
    • Codex א – Sinaiticus (c. 330–360)
    • Codex B – Vaticanus (c. 325–350)
    • Codex C* – Eprhraemi Rescriptus (5th C.)
    • Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 375 -380)
    • Codex L – Regius (A.D 701-800)
  • non-Greek witnesses
    • Bohairic Coptic [Codex Bodmer III] (A.D. 300)
    • Diatessaron (“Out of Four”) of Titan the Syrian [Arabic version] (c. 160-175)
    • Syriac Peshitta (A.D 150)
    • Adysh manuscript (A.D 897)-Gregordian-Georgian/Iberian version
    • Opiza manuscript (A.D 913)
    • Tbet’ manuscript (A.D 995)
  • Late Greek
    • Minuscule 423 (A.D 1556)

Irenaeus’ (A.D. 130-202) ‘unigenitus deus’ in his Against Heresies IV, 20, 11 is probably a John 1:18 quotation from an Old Latin MSS.

The Coptic versions is one of the earliest versions of the NT where huios is completely absent.

Wallace again:

At the risk of sounding repetitive, θεός shows up again outside the Alexandrian tradition (e.g., early Latin Fathers in the Gospels are Western witnesses)76 with relatively strong textual weight (per Ehrman’s argument). (ibid.)

In sum, externally, both readings enjoy wide geographical distribution, even though υἱός is relatively stronger in non-Alexandrian forms of text. Both readings co-existed in the second century, although weightier MSS support θεός. As a whole, then, I believe θεός is more probable due to the quality, antiquity, and transmissional history of the witnesses listed above. (ibid.)

In retrospect, I conclude that μονογενὴς θεός is the best reading given all the evidence we have internally and externally. As a result, it is highly probable that the text of John 1.18 calls Jesus θεός. (ibid.)

4) EASTERN AND WESTERN CHURCH FATHERS AND HERETICS QUOTED IT

Irenaeus, Clement ,Eusebius, Basil, Cyril, and Origen, Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory-Nyssa, Heracleon, Hilary, Jerome, Origen, Ps-Ignatius, Ptolemy, Serapion, Synesius, Tatian, Theodotus, Valentinius, and Arius.

5) FITS THE CONTEXT OF THE PROLOGUE/ JOHANNINE GOSPEL

John 1:1 – pros ton theon / theos

John 1:1 – pros to theon

John 1:14 – monogenes

John 1:18 – monogenes / theos

John 20:28 – theos

You’ll notice how coherent the prologue is when Θεὸς is the reading.This is an internal argument for the authenticity of the reading Θεὸς.

Stylistically, θεός closes the inclusio begun in 1.1c; also possibly providing a parallel with 20.28 (the Gospel as a whole). (ibid.)


NOTES

There are two possible ways to translate the Greek phrase μονογενὴς Θεὸς:

adjective + substantive = only begotten God

substantive + substantive = only begotten , who is God or God only begotten

The μονογενὴς is best translated as ‘only-begotten’ (NKJV, NASB) cohering with the scope of parent-to-offspring relationship in which the word is used (cf: John 1:18, 1 John 4:9). To beget means to make someone have one’s nature. Thus, the word μονογενὴς encapsulates the idea of ‘only child’ as its primary semantic locus.

***

Now that we see that there are two possible rendering of john 1:18, it could be the only begotten son or the only begotten god, what prevents us from believing the latter instead?

None, bec biblically it confirms by other verses that indeed jesus is god such as:

John 1:1,14
[1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[14]And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Much so, Jesus had preexistence:

John 6:38
[38]For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

The one speaking on earth has come from heaven, therefore before taking on human form, he was already a talking entity in heaven as much as he is the same entity talking on earth. It was not speaking of his human form as this came from Mary’s womb but rather his spirit part that came from heaven.

John 1:1-2
[1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2]The same was in the beginning with God.

This is a manifestation of preexistence which confirms that indeed jesus is god. Preexistence in the sense that, he was a living entity in heaven as much as he is the same entity talking on earth and having come from heaven, then the one talking is not the human form. Logically its the “word” or god inside the human host.

John 1:1,14
[1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Therefore, having earliest manuscripts that renders John 1:18 as the only begotten god then it cannot be wrong to believe in it much so as it is supported by context.

There is various rendering of Acts 20:28 and two of such are the church of god and the other is, the church of christ but why did the Iglesia ni Cristo of Manalo prefer the latter and we cannot with John 1:18?

It has been a contextual fact that jesus is god therefore to choose begotten god is appropriate. But granting that it lacks biblical support, still John 1:18’s begotten god by itself impose an evidence that jesus is god given the church’s preference of it as the correct rendition.

1 Timothy 3:15
[15]But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

It could be begotten son. It could be begotten god. For us, we choose begotten god and for that, to us jesus is a begotten god, much so that context of preexistence is supportive of this fact.

Kostenberger and Swain recently concluded, “With the acquisition of P66 and P75, both of which read monogenēs theos, the preponderance of the evidence now leans in the direction of the latter reading [monogenēs theos].”64

IS FELIX MANALO THE RAVENOUS BIRD FROM THE EAST?

It has been a lingering concept amongst the INC that Felix Manalo is the fulfillment of many prophecies in the bible and one of such is about the ravenous bird from the east. They quote this verse:

Isaiah 46:10-13
[10]Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
[11]Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
[12]Hearken unto me, ye stouthearted, that are far from righteousness:
[13]I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.

The reason they believed this to be so is bec of scholarly testament from one of the bible translators as it say:

“… Again, kedem is used in a strictly geographical sense to describe a spot or country immediately before another in an easterly direction; hence it occurs in such passages as Gen. ii:8, 11:24, xi:2, xiii.11, xxv:6 and hence the subsequent application of the term, as a proper name (Gen. xxv. 6, eastward, unto the land of kedem), to the lands lying immediately eastward of Palestine, viz. Arabia, Mesopotamia, andBabylonia; on the other hand mizrach is used of the far east with a less definite signification (Is. Xli:2, 25, xliii, 5, xlvi, 11).”[William Smith, LL. D., Smith Bible Dictionary. (N.J.: Fleming A. Ravell, 1976, p. 153.]

So they were saying, the hebrew word used was mizrach and by adopting smith’s commentary, they have derived from it the term far east to have been denoted in Isaiah 46:11, but how reliable is the commentary?

Look at the commentary. It admitted that far east has less definite signification, meaning, it is not a certain derivative but on a less degree, therefore, its not certain.

Or if ever it was, no evidence whatsoever was produced to verify its certainty. Bec in matters of evidence, strongs numbers published close to 1890 has no mention of far east but simply east as it say:

Hebrew: מזרח
Transliteration: mizrâch
Pronunciation: miz-rawkh’
Definition: From H2224; {sunrise} that {is} the east: – east ({side} {-ward}) (sun-) rising (of the sun).

Therefore, nothing is certain to have far east as a contextual fact, bec what if it was simply, east? So in what certain note can we derive far east to have been the correct term used?

None so far.

Whereas in context, it is clearly established who this ravenous bird is. Firstly, we could assess that the ravenous bird spoken of has this functional necessity: he would execute god’s counsel. What does it mean by counsel?

Jeremiah 23:22
[22]But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.

Counsel simply means the words of god that causes sinners to repent, meaning, these are words of salvation. As much so as stated by god, that the ravenous bird must execute god’s counsel.

Counsel in hebrew:

Hebrew: עצה
Transliteration: ‛êtsâh
Pronunciation: ay-tsaw’
Definition: From H3289; advice; by implication plan; also prudence: – {advice} {advisement} counsel ({[-lor]}) purpose.

So on factual reality, it could be counsel or it could merely be a plan. So which counsel or plan are these?

Clearly, the context emphasize that this counsel or plan were on these specifics:

13]I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.

The counsel or plan of god was for zion (or jerusalem) to have salvation in its midst. This counsel or plan must be executed by the ravenous bird.

The question is, who fulfilled this reality? Who would establish salvation in jerusalem?

It cannot be felix manalo as he never preached in jerusalem. It is jesus christ.

Luke 1:67-79
[67]And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
[68]Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
[69]And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
[70]As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
[71]That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
[72]To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
[73]The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
[74]That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
[75]In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
[76]And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
[77]To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
[78]Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
[79]To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

Matthew 1:21
[21]And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

How could have felix manalo established salvation in jerusalem when he had never preached in jerusalem?

He never did. Even if his teachings through INC would be propagated in jerusalem, still, these are not his own teachings but its credit is to jesus christ as it say:

Colossians 2:8
[8]Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Belief is accounted on christ and not on felix manalo, therefore christ must have been the preacher, the recipient of our belief.

John 14:1
[1]Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

John 3:18
[18]He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1 Peter 2:25
[25]For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Therefore, the one who established salvation in jerusalem is christ being the preacher in all generation and in context is, the captain of salvation so as appropriate must be the only fitting to be referred to as the ravenous bird from the east and not felix manalo.

Hebrews 2:10
[10]For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

How come?
The ravenous bird established salvation in jerusalem whereas Manalo did not.

Lastly, it say the ravenous bird came from a far country. Country in hebrew is eretz which means land, so its rather a far land possibly within israel wherein the east star of jesus was seen therefore logically, jesus came from a far land in the east of jerusalem. It doesnt mean a country outside israel, bec it could be within its borders.

I had a debate regarding this and this is my comment:

My stand is formidable. Zion cannot be the church bec even if it say in romans, i lay in sion a stumbling rock of offense, neither was it emphatic on the church bec nothing confirmed it as the church, bec it could be literal jerusalem wherein jesus as the rock was lain, so nothing is confirmatory in that essence,

And yes, it said, far country, but if we consult hebrew it could also mean A FAR LAND, as confirmatory of jesus journey from bethlehem to nazareth wherein his east star was seen, therefore he came from the east after coming from bethlehem particularly a far land within israel.

And mizrach is less definite in terms of far east as smith commentary stated but is definite to mean east as synonymous to kedem, as stated by strongs numbers dictionary.

So nothing of a far east is ever been certain and definite, so it scrap your sole basis to mean philippines and manalo…

Why do i think it is jesus referred to as the ravenous bird?
Bec the ravenous bird establish salvation in zion, which i believe is the literal jerusalem…

And if ever it speaks of the church, still it was jesus who established salvation being the author of salvation as paul claimed

Hebrews 12:2
[2]Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Moreover, another comment:
REBUTTAL

My opponent tries to justify manalo as the ravenous bird by trying to discredit jesus. He quoted a verse which says:

TO THE LAW AND TESTIMONY, IF HE DONT SPEAK ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, THEN ITS BEC THERE IS NO LIGHT IN HIM.

He desperately tries to imply that for a servant of god to have light he must have spoken about generally all of the law and testimony, thus inclusive of the law of moses, but is that really so?

Jesus abrogated the law as it say in luke 16:16 THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN,

Therefore, the law and the testimony spoken of were speaking about the integral bible excluding what is abrogated as it say:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
[16]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17]That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Bec if it speaks about preaching the whole OT testimonies as specific of its integral form, then how could that be possible,

Nowhere did jesus or the apostles have spoken about the ravenous bird, or the other prophecies whether speaking about jesus or not, therefore, as by my opponent’s interpretation then they have no light.

Ill quote a verse and see for yourself if this has been preached by jesus:

Daniel 2:31-37
[31]Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
[32]This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
[33]His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
[34]Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
[35]Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
[36]This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.
[37]Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

Jesus never preached this so does he have light when this is also a testimony as said: if they speak not according to this word then they have no light in them?
Do you think you have interpreted this correctly?
NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT TESTIFYING ABOUT ONESELF FROM THE TESTIMONY AND LAW…
If it is not about preaching generally all specific testimonies then how would you account for jesus to speak specifically everything about all prophecies on him?

If you still insist, where in the testimonies did it account for felix manalo as the ravenous bird, when nothing in the testimony have it spoken anything about him?
Let me repost your basis:

THE LAW AND TESTIMONY, IF THEY SPEAK NOT ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, ITS BEC THEY HAVE NO LIGHT IN THEM…

So where in the testimony, firstly, manalo as the ravenous bird,
Secondly, zion as the church of god?

Bec what the testimony said was: the ravenous bird must establish salvation in zion. Therefore, for you to prove anything, you must prove first that zion speaks certainly of any other city than literal jerusalem.

If nothing is certain, then you know, other possibilities could point to other personalities as cyrus and jesus christ, which bro eli has tried to relay…

Lastly,

CONCLUSION

As far as the debate goes, clearly nothing has been placed in a rather certain stand but only the testimony which says, the ravenous bird will establish salvation in zion. It therefore bespeaks the rather weak argument of my opponent to have used ROM 9:33 “I LAY IN ZION A STUMBLINGSTONE AND ROCK OF OFFENSE” to express that zion is the church when nowhere in it, even the slightest notion, is emphatic of a church. It is rather on the notion that zion is jerusalem that is overwhelming and outstanding.

Nothing is certain in my opponent’s argument thus he failed to prove his stand quite credibly.

Therefore if nothing is certain then it open possibilities for other personalities such as cyrus and jesus christ as what bro eli has tried to relay and misunderstood as contradiction when he was just presenting mere possibilities.

On second point, the star of jesus was seen in the east as indicator to where he is. If the east star is seen in the east, how could they have located jesus if he was in the south or north through the star? Logically, it could only be possible if he was in the east.

Im not saying, bethlehem is in the east, what im saying was, after coming from bethlehem jesus went east before he went home to nazareth. Still, he came from the east.

This is the core of the argument he lack the adequacy to ever fortify: zion is the church. Nothing of a certain proof validated his argument thus it stands zion is jerusalem which if validated would rejects the concept that manalo is the ravenous bird having not preached in jerusalem,

Zion is jerusalem…

Micah 4:2

[2]And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Having that as premise, then zion is clearly jerusalem whereas nowhere did it directly referred to a church, much so a church the pasugo claimed was not a member of the 1st century church yet claiming rom 16:16, the early church to be referring to them. Ridiculous but that is not the point.

So in matters of contradiction and curse, have our group, MCGI, preached otherwise than the apostles to have merit a curse?

No. We simply were giving possibilities that it could be cyrus or jesus beside the fact that the apostles never tackled a single bit about the ravenous bird.

So are we cursed?

Conclusion: Zion could only refer to jerusalem and felix having not preached there rejects him as being the ravenous bird from the east.

IS THE WORD IN JOHN 1:1 A MERE IDEA?

Joe Ventilacion, a Greek scholar and debater of the religious group notorious with its allotted name Iglesia ni Manalo has exuberantly employed the concept that the verbo or word in john 1:1 cannot be derivative of a god as a living entity. It is only an idea having no cognitive abilities but merely a thought, a plan, an inanimate imagination.

But does it have any fraction of reality in it? They quoted a supplemental verse:

1 Peter 1:19-20
[19]But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
[20]Who verily was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

As you can see, so as they misconstrue context, they said god has foreknown jesus, therefore god knew beforehand that jesus the messiah who he is and how he would be as man, was already determined before his existence thus he was merely a thought, an inanimate figure, an idea.

But wait, was the thing foreknown not existing at hand while his future as redeemer was foreseen?

It has to answer this question by a verse if not, nothing confirmatory would ever be produced from it. In fact, when jesus was the word, he was a cognitive and living entity. He was not a mere idea. And true, god foreknown him as a redeemer, and yet was existing at hand during pre-incarnation time. It doesnt mean to say, he has foreknown an inexistent entity. No. Jesus was existent while god has foreknown his future.

Bec if he was a mere idea, could he have emptied himself so as Philippians 2:6-7 has stated?

Philippians 2:6-7
[6]Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
[7]But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION.

If we look it up in greek, it would be: kenoo heauteau kenoo meaning, it is: emptied himself and abased

To make things in right perspective, let us consult context. Firstly, it say, jesus in his pre-incarnation state was in the form of god and equal with god. Next event was, he emptied himself and abased himself. Afterwards he incarnated. So as you can see, before becoming man, he emptied himself and abased himself. So obviously, during the emptyiing of himself he was already the verbo or the word. So the question would be, if the verbo or word is mere idea, how could he have possibly emptied himself and abased himself then seeing how he was inexistent still?

It cannot possibly be, so the only resolution to it is, the verbo or word was not a mere idea but a living entity.

Fact is, he was a creator.

Hebrews 1:8-12
[8]But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
[9]Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
[10]And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
[11]They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
[12]And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

As you can see, verse 10 was supplemental of verse 8 and was descriptive of the son, therefore jesus was a living entity before he was ever born of mary, firstly, being a creator and secondly, being someone having living attributes such as emptyiing himself and abasing himself.

That as clearly, defies the Iglesia ni Manalo’s stand of an inanimate jesus.